Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM
सुनवाई की तायीख / : 22.03.2018 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : 30.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-33, Mumbai, dated 08.01.2016 which in itself arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for short „Act‟) dated 10.03.2014. The assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A) had raised before us the following grounds of appeal:-
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income tax (appeals) erred in confirming that the gross purchase value of immoveable property amounting to Rs.1,41,00,000/- as unexplained investment and deemed to be income of the appellant in the year under appeal.
P a g e | Mr. Laxman Bhgwandas Mahbubani Vs. The Income Tax Officer-19(3)(2) 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not accepting the appellant's contention that notice u/s. 148 is bad in law.
3. Without prejudice the above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming that the appellant is not eligible of deduction u/s 54 as appellant has not filed the return u/s 139(1).
On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the appellant's contention that purchase consideration is paid out of the sale proceeds of the old flats and sources were duly explained.
Without prejudice the above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the appellant's contention that the appellant is 50% owner of the immoveable property purchased.
The orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO are bad in law and on facts.
The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or delete the foregoing grounds of appeal
.”
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee who is a non- resident individual had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration i.e AY. 2006-07. On the basis of AIR information received by the A.O that the assessee had during the F.Y. 2005-06 sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.1,41,00,000/-, the case of the assessee was reopened under Sec.147 of the Act. Notice under Sec. 148 issued by the A.O on 20.03.2013 could not be served in the normal course, as the assessee was not found available at the address. Service of the notice by affixture also did not result to compliance on the part of the assessee.
During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O gathered from a perusal of the agreement obtained from the office of the Sub-